The end of growth means the end of civilisation
Those arguing for an end to economic growth seem not to understand the dangers of stagnation and decline (Letters, February 25). Unless economies grow, they stagnate. If they stagnate, the rate of profitability falls. If profitability falls, investment falls. If investment falls, there are very few new businesses, new technologies or new products.
No neat little iPods, mobile phones or the internet, or even blood pressure pills. If there are no new products, there are no new jobs. If people are already losing jobs, this will simply continue. Fewer jobs means less wealth for families, and lower standards of living now and in the future. No growth now means no pensions. And so on.
If this happens, it will make the current downturn look like a walk in the park.
Its author seems not to understand the laws of physics. Unending exponential growth is not physically possible, and the likely consequences of trying to continue it are a complete collapse of the entire system. That is the real risk to civilization.
Instead, we have a period of prosperity and leisure to think about how to run a society that does not depend on unending growth; that does not require an unsustainable supply of fossil fuels and easily mined minerals; and that has a stable population. If we figure those things out there are other challenges - the universe can be a hostile place at times - but they are plenty to be going on with.
If we throw up our hands and decide that growth is essential, we will hit the wall very hard and there will be conflicts over the remaining resources that will make World War 2 look like a walk in the park. Imagine how it would go if we suddenly needed to cut our population in half over the course of ten or twenty years?
I would happily give up my iPod in exchange for the other half of my family, but in fact neither option may be needed if we can just pay attention to reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment